This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

OK, but I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative. I seriously don't understand how the dots connect and was hoping for an explanation. I'm not offended by your position, just trying to understand better. But if you don't care to explain that's fine of course.

The thing is JasparL, I have already explained it in some detail during the course of this discussion and in many discussions preceding this one. Those who pick up on one post and don't take time to read the others will not see all of the argument. And that's okay. That's the way these things go. My concern has been in the past and is now for the kids that I can see nothing good that will come from this. You cannot change the definition of something without making that something different from what it was. So marriage as we have long understood it no longer exists according to the Supreme Court. And THAT is what will make it increasingly irrelevant to our society in general because if getting married makes no difference, why bother to do it? And when people don't bother to do it, all the historical, cultural, and societal benefits are lost. I do believe it will be the children, both straight and gay, who will suffer the worst consequences of that.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

This next part really helps the argument of someone who would petition the government that plural marriages are constitutional.
Just think of a case where a man in an open relationship got another woman pregnant and wanted to marry her as well to bring her and his new child into his larger family..... for the above reasons that, according to this ruling, are protected by the constitution.

And then of course.... the "in closing" type statement is very supportive of the right of plural marriages...

Polygamy it is. Unless you can identify a legitimate state interest that can be identified in preventing it.

So, in other words, once again, some people are more equal than others.

Correct and your problem with that is what exactly? Citizens are more equal than non citizens. Charities are tax exempt and I can deduct contributions to them but not if I give a homeless man a gift of $5.

Bork was nominated in 1987 by Reagan and defeated by SEN. Ted Kennedy on the basis of his conservative ideology, not his credentials.
Reagan then nominated Anthony M. Kennedy, the Justice who wrote today's and many other GLBT opinions.

Polygamy it is. Unless you can identify a legitimate state interest that can be identified in preventing it.

Well there is one.. The state could refuse polygamous marriages due to those in polygamous marriages having an unfair advantage over those in non plural marriages. In that, government benefits would multiply by the number of plural members in the marriage thus unduly burdening the rest of the tax base. Further, plural marriages would also theoretically have advantages in other intangible ways such as education, employment, property ownership, and many other economic situations. Moreover, plural marriages convey, and encourage more plurality, and discourage diversity among other plural relationships. It is this (of course cleaned up much better into really neat legal sounding big words and all) and for these reasons that the state does have a compelling interest in regulating plural marriage.

Just off the top of my head, but you get the idea..

Tim-

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher